Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "America’s Thompson is Better Than You Think" video.

I remember reading a Guns & Ammo review of WW2 SMGs, about 2 decades ago: Thompson, MP40, STEN, and the Soviet Burp gun. The most accurate in Full Auto was the Soviet Burp Gun. Thompson was the 2nd. The least reliable, the heaviest, and the most expensive was Thompson. The most reliable, and the cheapest was the Soviet Burp gun.
1
@craigthescott5074 ''The Thompson has always been reliable. Heavy and expensive to make yes. The quality of the Thomson is only matched by the MP 40 this reflects in the values of the guns today.'' That had been my expectation as well, till I saw the test at Guns & Ammo by Mike Venturino. MP40 was stamped, not machined. The build quality was not up to earlier Thompson. ''The Sten being the cheapest and worth the least'' The Soviet burp gun was cheaper to build. ''If your assumptions were correct the Thompson wouldn’t be the most valuable of them all today.'' Market value doesn't decide the fighting quality of the guns for the purpose intended. The discrepancy between the numbers of the guns desired available, and the number of collectors, and the the distribution of the funds available per each collector decides the on going market value of the guns. If your logic is valid, then the Sherman tanks should be worth more than Tigers in the surplus tanks market.
1
@craigthescott5074 ''actually the market decides the value of the gun not the collector.'' In the market for Thompson, the collectors are the market. ''The fact is there were many Thompson’s made more than other WW2 sub guns.'' More than Sten? More than the Burp Gun? Besides there are far more collectors of Thompson, both for historical, and aesthetic reasons, than other subguns. As I had said before, the number of collectors with enough funds for their hobby relative to the numbers of guns available for collection decide the market value of the guns. ''The build quality is probably the biggest deciding factor in the value of the Thompson.'' Oh, I agree, as I had said before, Thompson was the best of the bunch, by a big margin when it came to build quality/workmanship/materials. ''Not many subguns were machined.'' Indeed, not only that the quality of steel was extremely poor, especially for the Soviet ones. ''Rarity also is a factor that’s why M3 grease guns are so valuable.'' That's what I had said essentially. I wonder how M3 would have performed in relation to Thompson, probably better. ''Many factors come into play, history, shootability, caliber etc. fighting quality isn’t really a factor in the sub gun market. It’s all supply and demand. There’s a low supply of class three subguns and a high demand.'' That's what I had said. ''fighting quality isn’t really a factor in the sub gun market. There’s a low supply of class three subguns and a high demand.'' Isn't that what I had said? ''And the Thompson had more than enough fighting qualities.'' For military purpose, I agree, less so for LE and Personal Defense. ''And accuracy with quality subguns has more to do with the skill of the shooter than the gun itself.'' I'm not so sure about that. In the Venturino's test, the same shooters shooting different subguns, and while Thompson was #2, it was the Soviet burp gun, the cheapest, the poorest workmanship/build quality, yet still lighter than Thompson ended up taking #1, for full auo accuracy. Btw. for whatever it's worth, Mao's bodyguards cherished M1 carbine, and begged Mao let them use M1 over the Soviet Burp Gun! They valued the lightweight, overall balance, and the longer range of M1 carbine over the Soviet Burp Guns' superior reliability, and superior full auto accuracy. I found out from a book, 'Mao: The Unknown Story', the best single book on modern China.
1